Libellus IV

Here is what H.C. Chery, O.P., has to say on the matter of "What sins to confess" in his book, Frequent Confession (the items in bold are a point which I find particularly pertinent):

"A choice is necessary
In church, bu the confessional, I begin my examination of conscience. Of what sins shall I accuse myself?
The question is obviously relevant. For I could not possibly aspire to confessing all my sins. Scripture says that the just man sins seven times a day, and I, who am not a just man, sin in all sorts of ways every day. A complete confession, with an as accurate a total of my sins as possible, is an unattainable dream--and useless as well. A choice must be made. What must I choose?
[We all know mortal sins must be confessed, so I'll skip this part.]

In case of doubt
For some the difficulty is to know when a certain sin is mortal. In theory everyone knows: grave matter, full consent, and full knowledge. In practice, the question often arises, was the matter really grace? And still more commonly, did I really consent? The answer to the first question can easily be found by asking the confessor. As regards the second, by the very fact that I ask myself the question in good faith, sincerly, by the very fact that I am not sure, it is answered; there was not full consent. Does that mean that this 'doubtful' sin, or rahter this 'doubtfully committed' sin, should not be confessed? Not at all. The existence of such a doubt may legitimately allow reception of the sacrament of the Eucharist; strictly speaking there is no obligation to confess such a sin, but it would be wrong to shelter behind this absensce of obligation in order to retain posession of such a doubtful conscience....
[I have skipped also a couple paragraphs on the formation of conscience.]

Venial sins
But I desire particularly to insist here on the examination and confession of venial sins. Isn't it precisely in this respect that those who regularly confess are most deficient? What is the complaint most often on the lips of those who confess frequently? 'Confession is a bore because I always have the same thing to say.' Or else this remark which refers to the confessor: 'He says nothing to me,' meaning nothing out of the ordinary which would force me to bestir myself.
Now these two defects which make confession psychologically tedious are due to the same cause: you do not know how to confess. How do most penitents confess?

Acts not stated to be confessed
Some (a few it is true), forget that sin is an act, not a state, and they manifest (or think they manifest) the condition of their soul by saying: 'I am a liar, I am impatient,' etc. This way of confessing is not the right one. You show thus the inclinations of your soul; but confession is not an account of your inclinations; it is the statement of precise actions, the consequence no doubt of your propensities, but differing from them as the fruit does from the tree. An individual may well have a propensity to lying (being a liar) without in fact having committed sins of lying during the fortnight following the last confession. If such sins have been committed the accusation should be 'I have lied, I have failed in charity, I have been lazy, I have been vain'. This formula is more correct, but as an accusation it is scarcely better, that is, is scarcely more profitable to your soul, scarcely more likely to draw useful advice from your confessor. Why? Because it is colourless. It has not required special thought on your part, nor any attempt at precision. It furnished the confessor with no special distinguishing signs enabling him to see in what way your soul differs from the one that he had to judge and advise before yours. Of the ten penitents who follow you, nine at least may well present the same list--and unfortunately in fact do so. Why (unless he has other knowledge of you) should you expect your confessor to give you exactly the advice you need, you personally and not another? Your personal case has not been shown to him by this confession; it gives him nothing to go on. He would have to possess wonderful psychological insight to be able to divine from this rapid list of 'standard' sins uttered through a grille in which he cannot even see your face, the words he should say to suit your case and incite you to make the effort that you, personally, ought to undertake yourself. All confessors cannot be expected to be like the Cure d'Ars. Usually he will only give back to you what you yourself have provided him with."

"Ha! Meditate on that," Chery seems to say. And he has a point: How many times have I said myself or overheard my friends say, "All he said to me was to make sure I'm saying my prayers every night and say ten Hail Mary's as a penance!" Sometimes it might be the priest, but in my case, at least 5 out of 6 times, I'm sure this has been my own fault. And what advice does Fr. Chery give to help us confess better? You'll have to come back at a later date to find out.

Fire on Campus


A fire started around midnight last night on the Gonzaga campus, destroying a not-yet-completed apartment complex. The $10.4 million complex was expected to open in July, and is likely a total loss, but thankfully no one was injured. The building with the light on the left of this picture is St. Gregory Choral Hall. No damage to surrounding buildings has been reported. See the Spokesman-Review article for more details. 

Libellus III

Continuing the series of posts from Frequent Confession by H.C. Chery, O.P., the little book next examines why one should confess to a priest. This could be useful if you're like me, and have friends or relatives who just don't understand why confession is important.

"This is the place to mention why I sould confess my sins to a priest instead of merely acknowledging them directly to God in the inmost recesses of my heart. It is because I am a member of the Church.
My sin has offended God and has injured me: it is a violation of the love that I owe to my Creator, of the proper love that I owe to my Creator and of the proper love that I should bear towards myself as a child of God. But it has also aimed a blow at the Church, the mystical Body. 'Every soul which raises itself, raises the world.' Every Christian who falls impedes the perfection of the Christian community. The most hidden of sins causes an injury to the tree of which I am a branch. When I cut myself off from the tree completely by mortal sin or merely separate myself from it a little, the whole tree suffers. My spiritual vitality is entirely dependent on the Church for God, for my benefit, has entrusted his graces to the Church, the Body of Christ. I must therefore also depend on her to be delivered from my sin. In the first centuries this responsibility towards the Church appeared more clearly when confession was public and made before the assembled congregation. Nowadays this discipline has been mitigated, but I must still accuse myself before the Church in the person of the priest who hears me and it is from the Church that I receive reconciliation by the ministry of the priest who absolves me."

I will skip the next section, "Confess to the same confessor as far as possible," because I think the reasons for this are easily and commonly understood, as well as the section on how to choose a confessor. Next time, I will begin posting the section on "What sins to confess."

Hopefully this is helpful to some of you out there, since many people take advantage of Lent to go to confession, or to resume a practice of regular confession which has fallen by the wayside, or just to meditate on what we are doing when we confess.

That's a really interesting-looking crab. Crab is yummy, but I don't think I'd want to eat that one.

Libellus II

As a small child, the instruction I received on how to go to confession was pretty minimal. It covered what you were supposed to say in the confessional, and what the priest would say to you, and what would happen as a result of saying these things. I made my first confession before my first Eucharist, and was not thereafter encouraged to go frequently until I was in junior high--by which time I had to basically re-learn everything from the preveious inadequate instruction, plus gain some understanding about what it was really about, and why frequent confession is important.

But I have always felt a lack of knowledge about how to go to confession. I make my examination of conscience, am contrite, go in and tell the priest my sins, come out and do my penance. Sometimes, the priest gave me really helpful advice and a penance designed to help me keep from sinning again. Other times, I got a very general sort of admonition and exhortation, and 10 Hail Mary's. I very much disliked having the latter experience (which happened far more often than the former), and assumed that the priests I went to just weren't very good confessors, and that I should strive always to find priests from whom I'd get good advice and a really "useful" penance. This little book has, I think, provided me with much useful advice on that subject, as well as some others (preview of things to come: the general exhortation/"boring" penance phenomenon may sometimes be because of me, not the priest). Again, the booklet is Frequent Confession by H.C. Chery, O.P. The following is from the section, "To whom should I confess?"

In the first place, to a priest
"I have purposely used this general term to emphasize the importance, the primary importance, in the use of the sacrament of penance that should be given not to the qualitites of the man who hears the confession, but to his capacity as Christ's minister. Because we lack faith, we are apt to pay exaggerated attention to the human value of the confessor--real or objective value or one that our instinctive liking or trust attributes to him. Obviously it has to be taken into consideration, but from a point of view that, so to say, is marginal to the sacrament. It functions in connextion with the advice which follows the accusation of sins and precedes the absolution. But the sacrament is not made up of this advice; it can even do without it entirely. What is important is to be in touch with Christ who holds our pardon in his hand, with Christ living and acting in his Church. Every priest who has received from the Church the power of absolving you validly acts in persona Christi, in the name of Christ. For your soul he opens the living springs of pardon, the Blood of Christ our Redeemer, and washes it in this Blood.

To a priest who represents the Church
Consequently, it is an erroneous attitude, due to lack of faith, which causes some penitents to postpone freeing themselves from a serious sin or to put off indefinitely a confession which would deliver them from a growing spiritual sickness (by purifying the gradually spreading centres of infection) because 'their confessor' is absent. If they understood what the sacrament is, and how it is superlatively efficacious in its work of purification, independently of the priest who administers it, if they understood that the confessor is primarily the minister of Christ, that is, the ear of Christ to hear the accusation, the wisdom of Christ to judge, the mouth of Christ to pronounce the absolution, they would cling less to human appearances and not postpone their confession."

The next part goes on to say why it is important to confess sins to a priest instead of merely acknowledging them directly to God. I will post that tomorrow, if I have time.

Top U.S. bishop accused of sex abuse

SPOKANE, Washington (AP) -- A woman has filed a claim that she was sexually abused more than 40 years ago by Bishop William Skylstad, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and leader of the Spokane Diocese.

This claim seems fishy to me, especially considering everything the bishop has done to prove that we are taking the scandal seriously. It also seems suspicious to me that her claim was only just filed, with Friday being the deadline for claims.

Either way, Bishop Skylstad, the diocese of Spokane and the woman who filed this claim are all in need of your prayers!

Libellus
That's "little book" for you non-Latin scholars.

Since it is particularly appropriate to this penitential season, I'm going to post some things from a little book--hardly a book, but more than a pamphlet--I found in our school library. I won't post the whole book, but the parts I found most useful (about half the book). It's called Frequent Confession: A Guide for those who confess weekly, fortnightly, or monthly. The French version, L'Art de Confesser, was written by Henri Charles Chery, O.P. The translation, published in 1954, is by Lancelot Sheppard (isn't that a great name?).

The little blurb on the inside flap of the cover (one of those rare cover-flaps on a softcover book) reads as follows:

"Frequent and regular confession can be a great means to holiness. Unfortunately, many penitents who go often to the confessional are distressed by the common-place nature of their confessions, and the small benefit they derive from them. They will find this book, written by a distinguished French Dominican, author of What is the Mass?, most helpful. Writing especially with young people--Catholic Actionists, for example, or young married couples--in mind, he tries to show how the merely formal and routine confession can be replaced by one which will be a genuine aid in the development of their spiritual life."

Anyone know what Catholic Actionists are? I've never heard of them. Continuing on, here is a section from the introduction which is helpful to understand before we get to the content of the book:

"Contrition and absolution more important than confession
In the first place, since we are about to consider confession, and nothing but confession, it should be carefully noted that it does not form the whole of the sacrament of penance, and is not even its principal part. The sacrament comprises sorrow, confession, absolution, and satisfaction. Essentially the sacrament is constituted by the absolution blotting out sin from a repentant heart. Should a penitent--on his deathbed, for example--be unable to confess, the sacrament can dispense with this confession, but it cannot dispense with sorrow. God, for his part, can dispense with the sacrament (in the absence of a priest qualified to impart it); he cannot save a soul in spite of itself and forgive a sin for which it obstinately refuses to be sorry.
Those persons for whom the essential seems to be the confession of their sins would do well to remember this. As the priest exhorts them to sorrow and speaks of the steps to be taken to avoid such sins in future they appear not to follow what he is saying because their attention is elsewhere and once they have accused themselves they are worried about mentioning this or that sin which did not occur to them at once. If a serious sin is in question it is normal to desire to mention it before leaving the confessional, but usually it is a matter of venial sins. There is great anxiety to be complete at all costs; there should be great anxiety to be contrite at all costs.
From the foregoing it should be clear that during the few minutes usually given to the immediate preparation for confession it would be well not to devote them all to examination of conscience, but better still to ask God's grace to obtain sincere sorrow for sin and to give expression in advance to contrition and a firm purpose of not falling again."

More--advice on who to confess to, what to confess, the manner in which to confess, and firm purpose of amendment--will follow in the next few days.

Lack of the A-word

Alleluia, that is. I was just reading a post over at Summa Contra Mundum in which Athanasius wondered why us Roman-types don't sing Alleluia's during Lent, in contrast to our Eastern brethren, who wouldn't dream of not singing Alleluia, since God is always good, and even a time of fasting and repentance is a joyful time.

I took this opportunity to show off what I know about the history of the chant before the Gospel (which is the Alleluia in all times but Lent). The following is what I posted in the comments there:

In terms of the chant we sing before the Gospel (the most prominent appearance of "Alleluia" in the Roman liturgy), it isn't a matter of the Alleluia being omitted during Lent, though many people think of it that way. Historically (as in, 7th Century) there was a Tract (long, melismatic, multi-verse chant with mostly psalm verses as the text) before the Gospel. Eventually, the Tract was replaced by the Alleluia on Easter Sunday, then for the whole Easter season, and then all the time...except for Lent, which retained the Tract. The Tracts we sing in Lent are some of the oldest chants in the Gregorian repertoire, along with the chants for Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and the Easter Vigil.

I don't know why the Alleluia never made it into Lent. Perhaps the reason generally given, that Lent is a time of solemnity and penitence, is the reason. At any rate, not singing the Alleluia during Lent is one of our oldest remaining liturgical practices, so please don't knock it: we Romans need to cling hard and fast to the few ancient traditions we have left!

We'll be happy to join you in many choruses of "Alleluia" on Easter, since from Easter until Pentecost, all 5 of the Proper chants for every Sunday contain the word "Alleluia" (decidedly not the norm for the rest of the year).

If anyone has any more information on the subject, I'd welcome it.

POD Pope

iPod, that is! See American Papist for details.

A Big Deal

Though I am not formally a member of the Diocese of Spokane, I have been residing in it for nearly four years, and will probably always have some attachment to what goes on here. So, for me, as for all the diocese, this is a big deal: the Missionaries of Charity have arrived in Spokane. Four sisters will take up residence in St. Patrick's parish. The welcome Mass, Eucharistic procession, and dinner will be tonight. Unfortunately, I'm unable to attend (fie on choir rehearsal!). Still, it should be something. The young pastor of St. Patrick's (an alumnus of Gonzaga and the NAC [2000]) has been working hard to bring the good sisters to the Northwest, and he's finally accomplished his goal. Apparently, there are no other Missionaries of Charity in Washington, Oregon, or Idaho.

Bishop Skylstad may not be the best bishop in the world (*grumbles* doesntallowindultMasses), but some good things are happening in Spokane.